>> coming up, as u.s. relations with other countries sour over the nsa scandal, commerce holds a public hearing to look into the spy issue and hospital performs -- and possible reforms. collateral damage of u.s. drone strikes overseas. a pakistani family on what killed their family matriarch. headed to jail, former u.s. congressman will be spending three years in the slammer. he was convicted of multiple

crimes, including wire fraud, conspiracy, a breakdown in his criminal activities later in the show. it is tuesday, october 20 ninth, 5 p.m. in washington, d.c. we begin today with the continued fallout between the united states and the european union over allegations that the u.s. has been spying on its closest allies. german officials have confirmed that the eu is now mulling over sanctions against the u.s. government. it seems the international league has decided that actions are far from over. glenn greenwald says there are many more ahead. >> we are working as fast as we can to make sure that these

documents are in every single country which is most countries of the world. what we have seen in brazil and germany and france and india and now span, of course, the united states, it will repeat itself continuously for the next several months in almost every country around the world. >> senator feinstein called that the agency. she said, with respect to the nsa collection of intelligence on allied leaders, i am totally opposed. i do believe the united states -- i do not believe the united states should be collecting phone calls from allied presidents and prime ministers. they are holding a hearing to discuss the activity of fisa which sets guidelines for the

nsa bold collection of information. former contractor edward snowden leet important information on how -- leaked detailed information on how this is done. a number of proposals have been sent to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections to further build the confidence of the american public and our nations fisa programs. i am joined now by sam sacks, who is live at the capital. the hearing was supposed to consider a number of proposals.e proposals entail? >> good to be with you. just to recap, the pfizer court is this top-secret court -- this fisa court is this top-secret court that provides the oversight over the nsa. they have to go to this court to

get a lot of these court orders. the problem is that nobody really knows what goes i inside. the opinions are classified. there's only one arguer and it is from the government and there is no one representing the privacy of the individual from whom the government is turned to get information from. so today was about getting more transparency and a number of ideas were brought up, such as a process for declassifying the court's opinion to give members of congress some idea what is going on here. and there is an idea to install it privacy advocate within the court who would argue on behalf of civil liberties. there is another proposal on the table to restrict section 215 of the patriot act, the is this records provision which nsa, which the court has given the nsa the authority to scoop up all of our phone metadata that the nsa -- that the romance have been revealed -- that the

programs have been revealed by edward snowden. it could put the country at risk and leave the u.s. open to another terrorist attack. they were not open to that reform in particular. but the other reforms come out some of them, they were open to. >> -- but the other reforms, some of them, they were open to. there is a pretty good likelihood. a lot of these individual reforms are incorporated into broader nsa reform bills that have been introduced. when it comes to the chances of these bills passing, there is bipartisan support, which is something is unusual around congress. bipartisan support can move these. this is something the jan schakowsky said today at the hearing. >> the two individuals who wrote

, one republican, one democrat -- yes, one republican, one democrat -- who wrote the usa patriot act shortly after 9/11 have now introduced the usa freedom act that essentially would repeal many of the aspects and change them, of the patriot act. >> she is referring to commerce men sensenbrenner -- congressman sensenbrenner you usa patriot act. it restricts patriot act sections 215, the "metadata" collection program. it has support from republicans and democrats. and it has a companion bill that was introduced in the senate by democrats. patrick leahy. so looks like something will get

passed and he comes to the nsa. it will be passed in the standalone bill and something in the authorization pack that needs to be done by the end of the year. but it still remains to be seen whether it will be more meaningful reform or something watered down. >> we will have to wait and see. but the latest centered on spying on world leaders. did members of congress or official speak to that at all? >> yes, they spoke to it than the chairman of the intelligence committee gave deference to the nsa on this one. he said, this is what happens in the defense world. frances spying on the u.s. he does not have a problem with the u.s. spying on world leaders. knowing the plans and the intentions of world leaders is a

basic tenet of surveillance, surveillance 101. on the other side of capitol hill, in the senate, senate intelligence committee chairwoman dianne #, when she found abou leaders, it seemed to suggest that this is completely fair game and that it is something the nsa should be doing. >> it seems like there are questions over when and how much the white house new about -- white house knew about the surveillance. does it seem like they were aware? >> there is a question when it comes to the intelligence community. chairman mike rogers suggested that the committee knew about this waste on the national intelligence primary framework. it is a giant report that the intelligence committee and the white house get that has the

priorities of the intelligence committee. but other members of the committee pushed back. saying, hey, this committee didn't know about it. they asked the nsa why they were not informed about these programs, which led to this competition between chairman mike rogers and connor smith adam schiff about whether or not he actually knew about the program to spy on world leaders. >> i'd be interested to know, mr. chairman -- >> i can take you down to the committee and spend a couple of hours owing to mountains of product that would allow a member to be as informed as a member wishes to be on sources and methods and all activities of the intelligence community under the national intelligence framework. >> i would just say -- >> we need to be careful. it is disingenuous to use the classification. >> if you are suggesting we have information that we don't have it, that is disingenuous. >> that was a very public and

very embarrassing dustup on the house intelligence committee where you have members debating what they knew about and when they knew it. this is a committee we are told are providing oversight on the nsa. given what we heard from senator dianne feinstein yesterday, which she would suggest is the chairman mike rogers didn't actually know about it and his counterpart in the senate didn't know about it. neither intelligence communities were fully briefed on this for graham, that they were authorized -- on this program, that they were authorized surveillance on world leaders. >> just today, we sat down with ecuadorian president during his trip to moscow. is there to boost the friendly relations that already exist between the two countries. the relationship between ecuador and russia gained new momentum this year after they've aligned their support behind edward snowden. >> mr. cory is now in moscow,

the same city where edward snowden currently resides during his clinical asylum. -- his political asylum. >> at first, they said it was necessary for fighting against terrorism and i don't know if angela merkel is a terrorist. i think it is clear that the you surveillance rogue rams for economic reasons, helping -- surveillance programs for economic reasons, helping transnational companies. imagine if they found the service a -- the same surveillance by cuba. they would have called us dictators. >> the economy of ecuador largely depends on the united states. it is by no means an obstacle for him to come with open criticism of washington's

actions. i remember when i covered the huge international scandal involving -- when his airplane was denied airspace in europe and had to spend 12 hours in vienna's airport. there were very exposed of words from the ecuadorian foreign ministry saying that, if this happens to the u.s. president, it would have been a good reason to declare war. of course, the economic and military cooperation would be on the table between president clinton and president korea -- between president putin and president correa. >> u.s. lawmakers heard testimony from survivors of an allergic u.s. drone strike today. three pakistani members talked about an attack that killed the 67-year-old mother and grandmother impacts and last year.

-- and grandmother in pakistan last year. they have high hopes of getting answers from congress. >> this was the first time actual victims of u.s. drone strikes were in congress and there were maybe only for members of congress who came to this briefing and apart from the congressmen who initiated this meeting, alan grayson. it is no secret that congress generally approves of the use of drones. on october 24 of last year, a drone strike left this pakistani family devastated. a nine-year-old girl and a 13- year-old boy barely escaped death that day. their grandmother was killed while picking vegetables in the garden. >> i prefer gray skies. drones don't fly when there are

gray skies. >> this family has never been abroad before. the father said he looked at the life around here in d.c. and i met them at a lively d.c. restaurant where they were invited and the father said he wished his children, too, would be able to walk the streets not afraid of being bombed at any moment. the family came to washington hoping to get answers to why, if they have to -- i had a chance to talk with the little girl the day before. here's what she told me. why do you think your grandmother was killed? >> i don't know if it is one of the reasons why we came here. i have no idea why my grandmother was killed. when the drone hit, i was outside with my grandmother. everything became dark. i was scared. i should've to run. then i noticed my hand was

bleeding. so i tried to clean my hand the applicant coming out. i was very scared. i just kept running. -- my hand. but it kept coming out. i was very scared. i just kept running. >> the purpose of this briefing in congress was to put human face to the durham strikes. there is a chance that, -- to the drone strikes. there is a chance that, in this meeting with congress, there story will fall on deaf ears. >> still ahead, and former commerce men was sentenced to three years in jail. guilty of extortion, money laundering and more. details of the congressmen when we return. >> we are now outside to active camps in guantánamo where prisoners are being force fed.

>> some have dubbed him the gulags our time.

>> a federal judge has now sentenced former representative rick renzi to three years behind bars. the former gop commerce men served in arizona's first district for five years. at the time of his indictment, he held a coveted seat in the house intelligence committee. however, that year, he decided not to seek reelection. june of 2013, he was convicted of 17 of 32 corruption counts. he was found guilty on two sets of charges, the first where he was found to be funneling client funds from his insurance brokerage to the election campaign. he was also charged with conspiracy where he and his partner orchestrated an illegal land swap of use government property.

"mr. renzi abused his power and corresponding trust became a being a member of congress by putting his own financial interest or the interest of citizens." to break down this case and what applications it may have to milers joined earlier by the director of the citizens for responsibility -- it may have, i was joined earlier by the director of the citizens first possibility. >> this was the bigger part of the case, the part that really advocated the abuse of public trust. mr. renzi used his position in congress to insist that the coppermine purchase plaland for. salmon in order for mr. sam went to pay back a debt that he owed to representative renzi. the truss company was not interested in this land. they were interested in making a land swap for some other land. but renzi kept pushing this land and he wanted it valued at a much higher price than it was worth. eventually, summoned from the resolution trust company went to

federal prosecutors zen told him -- eventually, someone from the resolution trust company went to the federal prosecutors and told someone. it went all the way up to the ninth circuit court of appeals. they tried to go to the supreme court. the supreme court declined the case. it has been when he is way through the courts. frankly, it is not satisfying to see him only get three years in jail for such a flagrant abuse of power. >> how did he get caught? that is the one thing i haven't been able to understand your question he got caught because people went to the justice department. people told the justice department what was going on, that they thought there were problems with what representative renzi was doing. they felt russian to participate in this -- they felt pressured to participate in this land swap. >> prosecutors asked for 12 years. the defense said it is a need to serve any time in jail. so what do you think about this three-year sentence? is that enough? >> that is a pretty light sentence given the fairly agree

just facts in this case. in other cases in which members of congress have gone to jail in recent years, including representative do jennings, they were involved putting money into their personal pockets. they received 10 and eight years respectively. so you see renzi getting nearly three years. it is a really low sentence. i think the judge may have taken into account that there was some problems in the prosecution's case. there were questions over whether the fbi had engaged in some inappropriate activity. the judge said that mr. renzi and mr. sandlin were good men who did bad things. i will say that it is dirty rare for a judge to give defendants -- it is pretty rare for a judge to give defendants who are fighting tooth and nail and give them the benefit of the doubt. >> do you think that,

considering any other place, do you think arizona had some thing to do with it? >> i think the judge seemed to be affected by the fact that this was a former congressman who was once well respected in the state. that the congressman's family pushed that he was a family man with lots of kids come a man of faith. rarely, do you see other criminal defendants getting the same benefit of the debt when they had done something so blatantly illegal. most people are caught red- handed and he never took responsibility. usually, these lighter sentences are handed down some and he accepts responsibly for their action, plead guilty and said, yeah, i did something wrong and here's why i did this that thing i did. but representative renzi's still saying that they will appeal again to the ninth circuit court of appeals. so they are not dead yet -- not done yet. >> can you talk about the misconduct? to what extent did it lead to?

>> some of the problems was the great amount of confusion that exists when a member of congress is prosecuted. there is a speech or debate clause. it says that members of congress can't be questioned about things in the legislative sphere. and when the fbi was doing its investigation of representative renzi, they were listening to some of his phone calls and overhearing material that they weren't supposedten toto. and d the judge was very troubld i that g good toof was thrown out of court. -- troubled by that. much of that was thrown out of court. >> i just want you to expand more on that. what was the rationale behind -- i just can't believe that this was actually used. question the speech or debate clause actually comes -- it is an original part of the

constitution and an important part of making sure that our members of congress were independent from the executive branch. at the executive branch couldn't come in and say arrest members of congress so they can be forced to do the executive branch ross bidding. -- branch's bidding. but we have seen an expansion of its recently. we sought in the case of the prosecution of william jefferson that we saw before the purpose -- before the prosecution of representative renzi. representative jefferson, his congressional office was searched by the ei and this was -- and the fbi and this was brought to the court. i think we are not through with seeing the speech or debate clause used by members of congress to basically hide their misconduct here and nobody else can get away with that. this is something that is particular to members of congress and let's -- and state legislators. >> in the case of tom delay, obviously, he appealed and was

acquitted. representative renzi says he will appeal. do you think it is at all possible that he will escape this? >> it is unlikely. the case of representative delay was very different than representative randy. representative renzi was actually putting money in his personal pocket. representative delay was doing something very different, funneling money into campaigns. >> we'll have to keep our eyes peeled into what happens next in this case. thank you so much foror coming , director of citizens for responsibly and ethics in washington. and to the controversy over obama's new health care law, it has to do with what president obama has been telling americans about how this will affect health insurance for individual buyers. >> if you like your dr., you

will be able to keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan, he will be able to keep your health care plan. first of all, if you have health insurance and you like your dr. and you like your plan, you can keep your doctor and he can keep your plan. no matter what you have heard, if you like your doctor and you like your plan, you can keep it. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage of the plan you have. nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. our approach would preserve the ride up -- the right of americans to keep their plan. >> we are now learning that that couldn't be further from the truth.

15 to 75% expect to get notification that their health insurance has been canceled. that is all because their existing policies may not meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. the law initially said that policies would be grandfathered, which means that consumers could keep them regardless of the new standards. but the department of health and human services narrowed down a provision saying that any policy that had significantly changed according to state law would no longer have grandfathered status. according to this investigation, the obama administration was not exactly in the dark about this. and fact, they have done this to be the case for at least three years. obamacare regulations from july 20 10th specifically say that, because of normal turnover rates, 40% to 60% of customers and insurance policies would lose their grandfather status. that means customers on those plans would have to switch.

the white house would not dispute that many policyholders would have to change their plans. in the vast majority of cases, the same insurers will automatically ship them to a plan that divides the new consumer protections. and for nearly half of the market and really is, discount or premium tax credits. like it or not, the method hasas changed in the white house says that it is for the better. on capitol hill today, the mother of trayvon martin called on lawmakers to work with state and local officials to reevaluate the purpose of the controversial stand your ground law. stand your ground is the piece of legislation that took front and center -- when george zimmerman was put on trial for the death of trayvon martin. a committee hearing took a look at the way the law is practiced in 30 different states. the panel also heard from lucio mcbeth, the mother of another slain african-american teenager

named jordan davis. the man who killed davis is currently trend use the stand your ground law in his defense. rt spoke with the davis family attorney john phillips and he talked in depth about how this law is being used and abused. >> stand your ground since 2005, when it was implemented, has taken the role of the jury to judge the facts and look at both sides and look at evidence and try to figure it out and saying we don't need to do that. let's just find legal gun owners in a legal place and look at them and what their situation is and let's examine their brains and try to determine whether they thought they were in fear for their life. if they were, that is all they have to prove, not that the situation warranted killing, but that they believed that they were wanted to kill. >> in their testimony, the two mothers did not question gun ownership but rather said that

they hope to see the laws clarified and applied logically. hello there. welcome to "newsline." it's wednesday october 30. i'm catherine from tokyo. turks have marked the founding of the republic by opening a tunnel linking europe to asia. they realized the project dreamed up more than a century ago.